Temporal comparison of ultrasound vs. auscultation and capnography in verification of endotracheal tube placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compared the time consumption of bilateral lung ultrasound with auscultation and capnography for verifying endotracheal intubation. METHODS: A prospective, paired, and investigator-blinded study carried out in the operating theatre. Twenty-five adult patients requiring endotracheal intubation were included. During intubation, transtracheal ultrasound was performed to visualize passage of the endotracheal tube. During bag ventilation, bilateral lung ultrasound was performed for the detection of lung sliding as a sign of ventilation simultaneous with capnography and auscultation of the epigastrium and chest. Primary outcome measure was time difference to confirmed endotracheal intubation between ultrasound and auscultation alone. Secondary outcome measure was time difference between ultrasound and auscultation combined with capnography. RESULTS: Both methods verified endotracheal tube placement in all patients. In 68% of patients, endotracheal tube placement was visualized by real-time transtracheal ultrasound. Comparing ultrasound with the combination of auscultation and capnography, there was a significant difference between the two methods. Median time for ultrasound was 40 s [interquartile range (IQR) 35-48 s] vs. 48 s (IQR 45-53 s), P < 0.0001. Mean difference was -7.1 s in favour of ultrasound [95% confidence interval (CI) -9.4--4.8 s]. No significant difference was found between ultrasound compared with auscultation alone. Median time for auscultation alone was 42 s (IQR 37-47 s), P = 0.6, with a mean difference of -0.88 s in favour of ultrasound (95% CI -4.2-2.5 s). CONCLUSIONS: Verification of endotracheal tube placement with ultrasound is as fast as auscultation alone and faster than the standard method of auscultation and capnography.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".